I feel that one thing that effective altruists haven't sufficiently capitalized on in their marketing is just how amazingly exciting the whole thing is. There's Holden Karnofsky's post on excited altruism, but it doesn't really go into the details of why effective altruism is so exciting. So let me try to fix that.

Growing up, it felt like the message I got from society was: one person just can't do much. The problems in the world are huge and structural, and naive reformers will eventually just become disillusioned and burn out. We can try to make small efforts in our personal lives, but they're tiny and won't scale.

Effective altruism says that this doesn't need to be true! Yes, some of the problems are huge and structural, but that doesn't mean that individuals can't have a big impact. The average person working in an ordinary job can potentially save several lives a year, just by donating a measly 10% of their income and doing literally nothing else altruistic! That would already be amazing by itself.

But it doesn't end there. Effective altruism says that, if you focus on the right career, you can have an even bigger impact! And the careers don't even need to be exotic, demanding ones that only a few select ones can do (even if some of them are). Some of the top potential careers that 80,000 hours has identified so far include thing as diverse as being an academic, civil servant, journalist, marketer, politician, or software engineer, among others. Not only that, they also emphasize finding your fit. To have a big impact on the world, you don't need to shoehorn yourself into a role that doesn't suit you and that you hate - in fact you're explicitly encouraged to find an high-impact career that fits you personally.

Analytic? Maybe consider research, in one form or another. Want to mostly support the cause from the side, not thinking about things too much? Let the existing charity evaluation organizations guide who you donate to and don't worry about the rest. Or help out other effective altruists. People person? Plenty of ways you could have an impact. There's always something you can do - and still be effective. It's not about needing to be superhuman, it's about doing the best that you can, given your personality, talents and interests.

Best of all? This isn't just some fuzzy feelgood thing where you're taking things on faith. People in the community are constantly debating these things, looking for ways to improve and to become even better at doing good. If you have even the slightest inclination, you're encouraged to participate and refine the ideas. If you spot a crucial flaw in someone else's argument, or suggest a critical improvement, it may impact the effectiveness of all the other effective altruists who are doing or thinking about doing something related.

Here's an extra bonus. At the moment, the core of effective altruism is formed of smart, driven, and caring people from all around the world. When you become an effective altruist and start participating, you are joining a community of some of the most interesting people on Earth.

A lot of people feel like life is meaningless, and that it doesn't offer any purpose that would feel worth pursuing. I've felt like that at times, too. But it's hard to find a purpose whose idea would be more compelling, exciting, or rewarding than that of effective altruism.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Comments12


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

"Growing up, it felt like the message I got from society was: one person just can't do much."

I relate and it's sad how often I hear people say that. I was reading Hari's "Lost Connections" when I had a Big aha moment; I thought I need to find my tribe, a community. That investigation led me to eventually find this community. I am floored by how many people are exploring ways to do good better.

Hi Kaj, enjoyed the post! 

I just wanted to ask if you might consider changing the "his" in "by donating a measly 10% of his income" to "their", noting that there are no other gendered references in the post. Maybe I'm being a little pedantic but I think I'm always quite eager to make sure women feel as at home in EA as I do! 

Thanks for noticing that! These days I would always use "their" in this kind of context, but I guess I didn't yet have that habit back in 2014. Edited.

This is absolutely so important. There is huge outreach potential for effective altruism into the mainstream. Millions of people would love to make the world a better place, and backing a movement full of vibrant young people doing exactly that using evidence and reason - well that is simply brilliant. Most older people will not want to get involved in the technical conversations - I have heard it distilled as "Go-Compare for charities" (and there involvement will therefore will not disrupt the heart of the EA community to respond to an oft quoted concern) but correctly positioned would be really interested in the sheer genuine, palpable, cut out the nonsense goodness of it - such a refreshing breath of fresh air in a cynical world.

The conclusion of the Oxford Martin Commission having studied the big problems of the world for many years were that at core of these problems is not something out there beyond us, as most of the big problems they identify having fairly clear solutions. The biggest problems are within us and systemic - short termism, selfishness and a narrow perspective.

The long term, cosmopolitan, and altruistic perspective of Effective Altruism is the perfect antidote for these problems, it just needs to go viral!

If EAs say deontological a bit less (particularly in talking to the mainstream) and be excited a bit more I believe that Effective Altruism can not only be one of the most exciting but one of the most important movements in the world.

Having grown up as one of those people who figured "can't succeed, don't try" with regards to large problems, I think this is really a fantastic point that I hadn't considered expressing this way. I think lots of people like who currently think like I did could be swayed if the message could get through to them that they can indeed change the world for the better.

This is awesome! I'm going to try this out next time I get to explain effective altruism to someone.

(I originally wrote "have to explain," but in the spirit of this article I rewrote it as "get to" before posting.)

Great, very inspirational post! I'll direct people interested in the EA movement to this.

I think we should write more articles like this (and/or encourage other media to do so - perhaps journalists should be invited to next year's EA retreat/summit). For instance, we could write articles on individuals and or/groups within the EA movement who personify the sentiments that you're expressing here. Concrete examples and personal, vivid stories that appeal to System 1 have a great persuasion power.

Nothing seems as fulfilling in terms of meaning than participating in the narrative of those who truly did their best to make the world a better place by the most effective means possible, and helped others participate too!

Great post, and definitely agree we should focus on this more.

Another thing I personally find exciting about effective altruism is that the question "How do I do the most good?" (with my career, money etc.) is a really motivating, intellectually challenging question to spend my time thinking about. So for those who enjoy spending their time thinking about interesting questions, effective altruism offers an environment in which to discuss one of the most important and stimulating questions out there - that's pretty exciting to me. I would imagine at least some others feel similarly.

Great article, thank you! I have just recently in the last 6 months decided to focus on how to live with altruistic purpose. I've decided that for myself, I can do the most good by developing a for profit business that has a meaningful social cause. the cause I will focus on, that is most dear to me, is in sponsoring international orphans with disabilities to be adopted into loving homes here in the USA. Specifically, we will sell retail product, but donate 50% of all profits to sponsoring children, one at time. We have already identified an international adoption agency to partner with and we are finalizing all other aspects of the business for a planned November 23rd launch. I would be interested to know what other social mission businesses have been launched by contributors to this forum so I can learn from your success....and failures! 8-)

Hey, this is fantastic! But I did want to point to something that helped me a lot, which purchase fuzzies and utilons separately. Personally, I find the most emotionally compelling cause to be euthenasia rights. I'm horrified by the fact that we are literally torturing people with terminal diseases for no reason. Despite how strongly I feel about this, I realized that this wasn't where I was able to have the highest impact. It is hard to propagate the feelings I have about this cause towards causes I "know" are superior in impact, but it is something I strive to do on an ongoing basis.

Don't let worry about this discourage you though. Doing something even with uncertainty is ALWAYS better than doing nothing just because of uncertainty.

Speaking of the possibility that individuals can have much bigger impact than is often considered and speaking of the fact that this is very exciting:

Consider a story that very well might be true: "Vlad the Astrophysicist": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bCFNN67wg

The thought that each of our actions now might be able to change whether our civilization is a common psht![1] or a rare psshht!!![2] or even conceivably a psssssssssssssssssshhhh...[3] is incredibly exciting.

[1] Psht! = A civilization that quickly (say, in another 5,000, 50,000 or 5 million years after the level of development of our present civilization) causes itself to go extinct.

[2] Psshht! = A civilization that continues to thrive for many million years, long enough to spread across an entire galaxy or even meet another civilization arising elsewhere in the universe).

[3] Psssssssssssssssssshhhh... = A civilization that continues to thrive indefinitely, until the end of time if there is an end, or literally indefinitely if there is no end.

And don't forget the possibility that our actions not only may be able to vastly increase the amount of time our civilization flourishes, but also may be able to vastly increase the quality of that flourishing. That's incredibly exciting too.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would